Docket Numbers: FF 110542-RT, FE 110247-RT
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                     DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433


        -----------------------------------X 
        IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
        APPEALS OF                             DOCKETS NO.: FF 110542-RT  
                                                            FE 110247-RT
           HERMAN GROSSBERG                
           SYLVA ZAMCZYNSKI,                   DRO DOCKET NO.: CD  130196-OM
                                                
                                               Premises: 65-60 Booth St.,
                               PETITIONERS     Apts. 6H, 6C, Rego Park, N.Y.
        -----------------------------------X                           
          
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        The above-named tenants timely filed  petitions  for  administrative
        review of an order  issued  concerning  the  housing  accommodations
        relating to the above described docket numbers.        

        The petitions have been consolidated for disposition as they involve 
        similar issues of law or fact.

        The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record  and
        has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to  the
        issues raised by the petitions.

        The owner commenced the proceeding below by  filing  an  application
        for a rent increase based on various major capital improvements,  to
        wit-boiler/burner, windows, elevator controller.
         
        Both tenants filed answers to the owner's application.   One  tenant
        alleged, of which is pertinent to the issues raised by the petition, 
        that the old windows were  defective  and  in  need  of  replacement
        anyway.  The other tenant requested an extension of time to file  an
        answer and to date  the  record  does  not  include  any  additional
        response. 
                  
        Thereafter, the Rent  Administrator  issued  the  order  here  under
        review finding that the installation qualified as  a  major  capital
        improvement, determining that  the  application  complied  with  the
        relevant laws and regulations based upon  the  supporting  documenta
        tion submitted by  the  owner,  and  allowing  appropriate  rent  in
        creases.

        In their petitions for administrative review,  the  tenants  request
        review of the Administrator's order and alleges that the quality  of
        the windows is poor, that the windows can  only  be  locked  in  the
        closed position, that the window trim is incomplete, that there is a 
        broken kitchen window,  that  there  is  an  inadequate  supply  and
        regulation of hot water, inadequate heat,  and  that  the  owner  is
        improving its property for which the  tenants  will  pay  the  cost.
        Additionally they assert that  the  owner  has  increased  the  rent
        several times and now there is another rent increase.







          Docket Numbers: FF 110542-RT, FE 110247-RT

        Subsequently, the owner interposed an answer to one of the  tenants'
        petitions which states that all the improvements were  performed  in
        full compliance with all rules  and  regulations  of  DHCR  and  the
        petitioner's assertions are without legal merit.  As to the tenant's 
        assertion of a broken window, the owner contends it's not but rather 
        the pane of glass is out of its track and had  been  repaired,  that
        the prior windows did not lock and neither do the new windows,  that
        there had not been any prior complaints  about  heat  or  hot  water
        which are maintained at 73o and 180o  respectively  and  the  boiler
        installation  had  been  inspected  and  approved  by  all   related
        agencies.

        After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion  that
        these petitions should be denied.

        Rent increases for major  capital  improvements  are  authorized  by
        Section 2202.4  of  the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations  for  rent
        controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the  Rent  Stabilization
        Code  for  rent  stabilized  apartments.   Under  rent  control,  an
        increase is warranted where there has been  since  July  1,  1970  a
        major capital improvement required for the operation,  preservation,
        or maintenance of the  structure.   Under  rent  stabilization,  the
        improvement must generally be building-wide; depreciable  under  the
        Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for 
        the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the  structure;  and
        replace an item whose useful life has expired.   

        The Commissioner can not entertain the  tenants'  assertions  raised
        for the first time on  appeal.   The  record  in  the  instant  case
        indicates  that  the  owner  correctly  complied   with   applicable
        procedures for a major capital improvement and the  Rent  Administra
        tor properly computed the appropriate rent increases.   The  tenants
        have not established that the increase should be revoked.

        This order is issued without prejudice to the tenants' right to file 
        an application  for  decrease  in  services,  should  the  facts  so
        warrant.

        The tenant's reference of more than one increase is not specific and 
        this order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to file 
        a rent overcharge complaint, if the facts so warrant.

        THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law  Code,  and
        the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is








          Docket Numbers: FF 110542-RT, FE 110247-RT



        ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same  hereby  are,  denied
        and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby  is,
        affirmed.

        ISSUED:


                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        Deputy Commissioner

         
    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name